SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Cal) 278

D.C.CHAKRAVORTI
AJIT KUMAR HAZRA – Appellant
Versus
RATHINDRA NATH ROY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.RAKSHIT, Amiya Kumar Chatterjee, PHANI BHUSAN DAS, SHYAMA PRASANNA ROY CHOUDHURY

D. C. CHAKRAVORTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against Order No. 34 dated December 1, 1977 whereby the learned Munsif rejected the petition for substitution made by the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purposes of this case are as follows. Two brothers, namely, Ram Mohit and Ram Mohan, filed a suit for eviction against the present opposite party. When the suit was still pending said Ram Mohit died on June 3, 1977 leaving a will whereby he is said to have appointed the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 the executors to his will. On July 27, 1977 the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in their capacity of executors made an application of being substituted in place of Ram Mohit. The application was opposed by the present opposite party before the Court below. The learned Munsif rejected that application.

( 3 ) MR. Shyama Prasanna Roy Choudhury, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, contends that having regard to the provisions of Sections 211, 213 and 306 of, the Indian Succession Act the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the prayer for substitution. Regard being had to the provisions of Section 2 (


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top